empathy, trauma porn, ethics, and voice

The first half of class was spent discussing the ways in which trauma is consumed and the ethical dilemma this creates. I’ve written a handful of essays analyzing different forms of trauma porn (media that showcases trauma for sensationalizing purposes) in literature. If you’ve never had to write something like that, I can tell you, it’s hard not to find yourself questioning your argument no matter how strong the feelings. That being said, I figured it would be interesting to post some of the thoughts/conversations I’ve come across in the past!

In thinking about the representation of trauma, we need to think of representation as a whole. This will, in turn, open the conversation to how we empathize. (This was on my mind particularly with the reference to the mirrors and courageous stories of the Oberlin exhibit.) White people, the most commonly represented in our media, are most likely to think that empathizing involves imagining ourselves in the situation. We were taught that’s how we can and should relate to the world. To many people of color, that’s going to come off very self-centered and privileged! (This can obviously be said of men’s representation, abled representation, etc. causing a normalcy for empathy centering the self.) The underrepresented have long been asked to empathize with that which does not consider them, let alone center them. Therefore, allyship involves (re)learning to empathize, and explicitly to empathize without assuming access to another’s position. (Part of enacting that could involve, as was said in class, continuing the teaching of Anne Frank, but clarifying: (a) that it was not and could not have been just anyone, (b) that it could happen again, and that even then it will not be just anyone, and (c) that you should still care and still do what you can to affect change.)

As well, we should consider the intent of the trauma exploration. (I know y’all in the English major aren’t supposed to mess with authorial intent but I’m psych so let’s Discuss.) Otsuka’s book explored a traumatic series of events and, as was said, she obviously and absolutely cannot even with this imagination/exploration actually understand the experience of those interned/incarcerated. However, she is more directly affected by the situation than most; intergenerational trauma is created by the traumatic events her family experienced, and while there may be a larger discussion about whether her writing should have veered more along what she knows than what she can imagine to piece together what happened to her family, it is inherently different than discussing someone completely unaffected imagining trauma. We can take a discussion like this beyond Otsuka, whose immediate family was impacted, into the realm of authors who may in modern times look back to trauma inflicted upon ancestors (distant or not so), as trauma does leave a genetic and social trace generations out. More plainly put, there’s a vast difference between the individuals who can walk away from the trauma and those that can’t.

Lastly, and probably most obviously, we should be considering whose voice is being heard and to what extent it challenges dominant society (the dominant society which we know still inflicts these same old traumas in new fashions every day). If we hail representation of traumatic events that still supports the status quo as brave or revolutionary just because it exposes us to trauma we had not yet known, there is a chance we are merely assuaging our own guilt over our own lack of knowledge (if y’all can’t think of examples of ‘groundbreaking’ trauma portrayals that were harmful, I’ve got like 50 offhand from the past year).

Hope this actually helps/interests someone rather than complicates it a hundred times over!